

w/ 



HOLUNGER 
pH8.5 

MILL RUN F3-1343 



E 423 
.HAA 
Copy 



SPEECH 



MR. PIEBAllD, OF VERMONT, 



THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE, 



V^> 



COMMUNICATING 



THE CONSTITUTION OF CALIFORNIA, 



DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U. S., IN COMMITTEE OF 
THE WHOLE ON THE STATE OF THE UNION, MARCH 14, 1850. 



WASHINGTON : 

CJIDEON AND CO., PRINTERS, 
1S50. 



SPEECH. 



In the House of Representatives, March 14, 1850, in Committee of the Whole on t}ie slate of 
the Union, on the President's Message communicating the Constitution of California. 

Mr. Chairman: Tliere arc periods and histrums in the liistory of all Governments, when 
matters of more than ordinary interest engross the attention of tlic pul)lic. And if any apology 
is needed for trespassing upon the time of the committee, it may he found in the importance of 
the subject under debate. But, sir, I trust we shall not be called upon to undergo the formality 
of making apologies, when matters grave enough to threaten the dissolution of this Union are 
iianging upon our hands, and calling for our action. I have no wish or desire to add to the ex- 
citement that has already taken possession of our deliberations, neither do I wish on such an 
occasion to conceal my sentiments. 

The full, free, and unrestrained expression of our opinions is one of tlie essential requisites to 
a free Government. 

The debate has been one of a most extraordinary character, and manifesting extraordinary 
interest, and has been to me one of novelty and astonishment, and has admonished me of the 
necessity of being prepared for all emergencies, without being astonished at any thing. Few and 
fleeting have been tlie years since it would have been regarded as evidence of a wandering intel- 
lect, for a man seriously to have talked of the possibility of a dissolution of this Union. But 
here, sir, gentlemen have not only talked of the possibility, but even of the probahiUly of the dis- 
solution of the Union, and have as coolly calculated the benefits to result from it as they would 
calculate the value of a crop of cotton or 'tnhacro. But, sir, 1 have no calculations of this kind to 
make. 1 do not expect nor believe that this Union is about to be dissolved. I believe, air, that 
the Union is to continue to shower down, upon its increasing millions of inhabitants, its 
blessings of peace, of prosperitij, and happiness, of glory and renown, until such time as an inscru- 
table Providence shall otherwise decree, as a punishment for our sins of ingratitude for our poli- 
tical blessings. I trust that this Government will stand " the asylum of the oppressed, and the 
home of the free," as long as we deserve to be a free and a happy people. 

In the discussion of this subject, sir, I have no flowers of rhetoric with which to strew the 
arena, nor shall I seek for words of polished diction with which to clothe my sentiments ; the 
occasion does not demand it ; it is an occasion that should call forth the words of '■ truth and 
soberness." Neither shall I seek to inflame the passions, or call up the prejudices of one sec- 
tion of our common country against the other. But 1 propose to examine some of the argu- 
ments of gentlemen upon the subject before the committee, and at the same time present my 
own views. 

Gentlemen have declaimed upon this subject as if slavery was their only present solace, their 
only /it/ure hope. But I hope and trust, sir, that they have greatly overrated its importance. 
And for what is this Union to be dissolved.' Why, it is said that the North have made aggres- 
sions upon the South ; that the institutions of the South arc threatened ; that the North contem- 
plate a course of legislation that is subversive of their dearest rights. In the making of laws 
I recognise " no North, no South." Laws are to be made for the common benefit of all ; to dif- 
fuse their blessings and their burthens upon all alike. But, sir, after what has been said, and so 
well said, by other gentlemen, upon the subject of these aggressions, I should have contented 
myself to have j\»ssed this part of the subject in silence, had not the Slate which I in part re- 
present, been most unnecessarily and untruthfully made the subject of this charge. It is easier 
to make a charge than to prove it, and hence 1 suppose the repetition of the charge is made a 
substitute for the proof Sir, the people of Vermont are a law-abiding people. They are not 
conscious of having made or threatened to make any aggressions upon other States. She has 
no wisli to interfere with the rights of others ; but while she respects the rights of other States, 
all who are acquainted with her history will admit that she has been able to take tolcraMy good 
care of her own. While she accords to others the free exercise of those constitutional rights, the 
freedom of speech and of the press, she has no idea of relinquishing the exercise of those rights 
her.self It will be recollected that early in the session my colleague, (Mr. Peck,) presented to 
this House, certain resolutions of the legislature of Vermont upon the subject of slavery. 
These resolutions have been made the subject of severe criticism in the other wing of the Capi- 
tol, as well as in this House. The gentleman from Arkansas, some time ago, in an address to 
his constituents, a copy of which he was so kind as to lay upon my desk, in relation to those 
resolutions, indulges in the following remark : 

"Already has Vermont asserted in solemn legislative action, that Congress has power over slavery 
in every State, except the original parties to the compact. Five of the slave States were parties; the 



oihtr nine \cere not; and of course, by this doctrine, Congress has power to abolish slavery in 
ihem. The doctrine seems monstrous now, but so did the same doctrine when first applied to 
the District of Columbia and the Territories. It excites unmitigated diso;ust and bitter denun- 
ciation now, but so did all the early efforts of abolition. Time will sanction this, as it has done 
all the past; and, in fifteen years from this, every northern State will have adopted the Vermont- 
ers platform. Would you then submit, or would you dissolve the bonds of the Union ? " So, 
then, because the legislature of Vermont, in the judgment of the gentleman from Arkansas, 
entertains an erroneous opinion of the powers of Congress, he would "dissolve the bonds of the 
Union." The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.^Veuablc, has indulged in the same strain 
of remark upon those resolutions, and says: "Those of the State of Vermont, in advance of all 
heretofore passed, actually claim the right to abolish slavery in the States admitted since the 
aboption of the Constitution ; and yet the current sets stronger, and presses with a mightier 
force." The resolution which has received so severe a commentary from the two gentlemen is 
as follows : 

"Resolved : That the so called 'compromises of the Constitution' restrained the Federal Gov- 
ernment from interference with slavery only in the States in v.'hich it then existed, and from 
interference with the slave trade only for a hmited time, which has long since expired ; and that 
the powers conferred ujion Congress by the Constitution to suppress the slave trade, to regulate 
commerce between the States, to govern the Territories, and to admit new States, &c., may all 
rightfully be used so as to prevent the extension of slavery into territory now free, and to abol- 
ish slavery and the slave trade wherever either exists under the jurisdiction of Congress." 

I might here submit to the world, which deserves to receive the most "unmitigated disgust 
and bitter denunciation," the simple statement of a historical fact, or the unjustifiable distortion 
and perversion of that statement. IVIr. Chairman, I insist that there is no fact or inference con- 
tained in that resolution that will even palliate the remark, that "Vermont has asserted in solemn 
legislative action that Congress has power over slavery" in a single State in this Union. 
"Mr. Ven'.mjle. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him? 
Mr. IIebard. With pleasure. 

Mr. Vexable, (Mr. FIebard yielding the floor.) The construction placed on the Vermont 
resolutions by me, in the remarks made some days since, is the true one, or I do not understand 
the En'-lish language. They affirm the fact that the "compromises of the Constitution restrained 
the Federal Government from interference with slavery only in the States in which it then existed, 
and from interference with the slave trade only for a limited time, which has long since expired." 
Why is the term ^'onhf used, unless it is intended to limit the obligation of the Federal Govern- 
ment to refrain from interfering with slavery in such States as it then had an existence. Now 
this use of the word " only," by all rules of construction, makes the exception in favor of the 
Stales where slavery existed at the lime of the adoption of the Constitution; and, of course, as- 
sumes that the right to interfere willi slavery in States afterwards admitted, was recognised, and 
allowed by the Constitution. . . . ■ 

Mr. Hebard. The resolution asserts that the compromises of the Constitution restrained, 
Cnot restrains) the Federal Government from interference with slavery only in the States in 
which it then existed. This, it will be noticed, in point of time, refers to the time when the 
Constitution was adopted — a statement both true and plain, and easy of comprehension. No 
such sentiments as are attributed to those resolutions are contained in them. No such senti- 
ments, so fiir as I know or believe, are entertained by any portion of the people of Vermont. 
It is not my purpose to disguise the fact that the people of Vermont are opposed to slavery, 
and, in all constitutional ways, intend to oppose its extension into territory now free. They 
believe it to be a great moral and political evil — an evil not merely to the slave, but an evil to 
the nation. But, while they hold and cherish these sentiments, it is no purpose of theirs to at- 
tempt, and they claim no power on the part of Congress, to abolish it in any State in which, 
by its own laws, it is tolerated. Sir, the Constitution has nothing to do with slavery. Congress 
has no power over slavery in the States. One sovereign State as well as another, by its own 
laws, can tolerate slavery. It is its own sovereignty that gives it the jjower, and not by virtue 
of any power derived from the Constitution. Hence it is that the Constitution gives no sanction 
to slavery in the Territories, and no one, by virtue of the Constitution, can carry it there. Sla- 
very was not created by the Constitution, nor by Con-^rcss ; it is older than the Constitution. 
The framers of the Constitution did not intend that ttieir names, nor the Constitution itself, 
should be reproached with the charge of tolerating slavery. At the formation of the Constitu- 
tion, slavery existed in a portion of the Suites, and for the sake of forming the Union it was 
permitted to continue ; but this permission was so cautiously given that neither the word slave 
or slavery is to be found in the Constitution. But while it was thus permitted to remain where 
it was, is It not also true that it was the understanding, the settled policy of the Government 
and the people, that it should not be extended; else why was it prohibited from tiie whole 
northwest Territory.' At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, no one dreamed of the 
acquisition of new territory, and the power by the Constitution to acquire it lias been doubted. 
And now, because we are in favor of carrying out the same policy that was developed at the 
formation of the Government, gentlemen say, "the North must stop their aggressions, or the 
'Union tnuRt lie dissolved.' " "The North must give us our rights, or 'let discord reign for- 
ever.'"' If ho.stility to slavery is a sufficient reason for dissolving the Union, why did it not 
preTcnl its formation .' 



But it is said, that there is widespread discontent at the South; that the North is degrading 
the South ; and that it is unreasonahle to expect them (o submit to it. Will some gentleman 
tell us in what this degriulatiou consists? and what the Noilh have done to produce itr If sla- 
very degrades the South, the North arc not responsible for it. If slavery is that ennobling in- 
stitution that the gentleman from Virginia (iMr. Me.\de) represents it to be, it cannot be de- 
frading the South to speak of it. If it is thai "great mori|l, social, political, and religious 
lessing," that the gentleman from Mississippi (iMr. Brown) represents it to be, can it be de- 
grading to the South to insist ui>on their keeping it all to themselves; or a sufficient cause for a 
dissolution of the Union, that otiiers are not able to appreciate this institution in the same aspect 
that tlie gentleman does? If, as he says, he " religiously believes that African slavery was 
planted in this country through the providence of God," instead of attempting to dissolve the 
Union, it would be better that he should labor for the spread of his religious sentiments among 
his less enlightened neighbors. But, as this last is but opinion, it may not be presumptuous to 
risk a counter opinion;°and I should, therefore, conclude, that if the providence of God planted 
slavery here, it must have been the same providence by which He gave the children of l.srael a 
king; it must have been in His wrath. But, in all candor, will not gentlemen tell us what they 
mean by "aggression" and "desradation," which are made to stand as godfathers for every sen- 
tence ai'id se'iuimcnt they utter?' Will not the gentlemen from Mi.ssissippi inform us what he 
means by "new acts ot outrage and aggression?"' When it was that we "threatened their 
domicils with conflagration ?" Will he tells us when it was that we "spurned their entreaties, 
and mocked the fears of the sacred pledges of their love?" Wlien was it that we " committed 
those long year.s of outrage upon their feelings," and perpetrated those " acts of lawless tyran- 
ny ?" It must have been more than fifty years ago ; for the pntleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Meade) boasts that, for fifty years past, the South have controlled the destinies of the nation; 
and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Clikgman) claims a " greater increase of popula- 
tion, more wealth, and less poverty and crime, in the slave States than in the free, "and that th 
people are "prosperous and happy." 

But, Mr. Chairman, they say we must stop talking about slavery— that great religious bless- 
ing, that source and promoter of human happiness. Sir, who set us the example.^ Is slavery 
any more sacred now than it was in 1776? Is it any more criminal to talk about it now than it 
•was then? Was Mr. Jefferson denounced as a "fanatic" for der.ouncing slavery as a " crime 
against humanity?" 

The legislature has resolved the same thing in relation to slavery, that Mr. Jeflerson said of 
it in 1776; and for this, gentlemen say, that the legislature of Vermont has committed an a^- 
gression upon the South, which, if persisted in, is" good cause for dissolving the Union. If 
Southern statesmen held slavery in such abhorrence as to afford a pretext for tinowing off their 
allegiance to the Government that had fastened it upon them ; if it made Mr. Jefferson tremble 
for his country when he reflected that God is just, may not the people of the free States be par- 
doned for thinking that it is not best to extend thi.s embarrassment over our newly acquired pos- 
sessions ? Was Dr. Franklin stigmatized as a fanatic for presenting, as president of an abolition 
society in Pennsylvania, a petition to the first Congress that convened under the Constitution, 
for the abolition of slavery in the States where it then existed ? Were the auakers of Pennsyl- 
Tania, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, denounced as traitors and enemies for petitioning the 
same Congress for tiie abolition of the .slave trade? Were Mr. Madison and Mr. Parker, of 
Virginia, then taunted with being fanatics, because they advocated the reference of those peti- 
tions, and held it to be the duty of "every member of the House to ascertain what could be done 
to restrain a traflic so nefarious ?" 

It is unnecessary to multiply quotations from Southern statesmen, eminent for their moral and 
intellectual worth, to prove that the sentiment of the people of the free States is in accordance 
-with the sentiments of the fathers and framers of the Government. Will gentlemen inform us, 
Mr. Chairman, why the expression of the.se sentiments, at this time, by the people of the North, 
is more aggressive, or more inexcusable, than the expression of .the same sentiments at the time 
and in the manner which I liave named ? 

Will gentlemen do one thing more? Will they inform us what they mean by Southern rights? 
Do they mean to .say that the Constitution, in fact, was intended to guaranty slavery beyond the 
then limits of the United States? Do they pretend that Congress has attempted to abolish sla- 
very in any State in which, by the laws of such Stale, it is sanctioned? If, then, no right has 
been violated, and no attempt at the violation of any right has been contemplated, is not all tl.at 
has been said upon this subject, " vox et prwterea nihil,"— Mere "sound and fury, signifying 
nothing." 

It would seem, then, to be advisable, at least, to wait for some overt act, and not attempt the 
dissolution of the Union for the mere expression of an opinion. 

But, Mr. Chainmn, a bolder hand in the other wing of the Capitol has set forth, with more 
distinctness, in what the "aggressions" of the North upon the South consists. Says Mr. Cal- 
houn : "What has caused this discontent? It will be found in the belief of the people of the 
Southern' States, as prevalent as the discontent itself, that they cannot remain as things now are, 
consistently with honor and safety, in the Union. The next question to be considered is, what 
has caused this belief? One of the causes undoubtedly is to be traced to the long continued agi- 
tation of the slave question on the part of the North, and the many aggressions which they have 
made upon the rights of the South during the time. 1 will not enumerate them at present, as it 



6 

will be done hereafter in its proper place. There is another lying back of it, with which this is inti- 
mately connected, thai niay be regarded as thegrea^ and primary cause. That is to be found in 
the fact that the equilibrium between the two sections in the Government, as it stood when the 
Constitution was ratified and the Government put in action, has been destroyed." 

Thus we have the great difficulty distinctly stated. This, .says Mr. Cai.iioun, is the primary 
cause of discontent. "This, he say.s, is l\\e great reason why this Union must be dissolved. 
"The two sections of the Government," says he, though taking an even start upon the national 
race course to prosperity, have not been aide to keep pace with each other. The Northern sec- 
tion, relying upon its own resources, with fewer of the natural advantages of soil and climate, 
have destroyed ''ihc eqidtibrixim in the two sections of the Government," and hence, as he says, 
the belief ihat the " Southern section cannot remain, as things now are; consistently with honor 
and safety, in tlie Union." This is the great and statesmanlike view, which the great statesman 
of the South has taken of Ihisgrfo/and primary cau.se of Southern discontent. 

Docs lie pretend that in thisany of the " compromises of the Constitution " liave been vio- 
lated .' Does he pretend that the increase of population at the North nullifies any of the guaran- 
tees of the Constitution r I apprehend this would be rather a difficult matter to regulate. Does 
he claim that the Constitution has been violated in the agricultural, manufacturing, and commer- 
cial industry of the North, by which the lands have been made productive and teeming with 
wealth ; by which manufacturing establi.shments, and villages, and towns, and cities have 
sprune into existence as by enchantment; and by which the wharves, and docks, and ship 
yards have sent to the tour corners of the earth, and over the whole wide expanse of waters, 
their forests of masts, successfully competing with the "wooden walls of England," and the 
commerce of the world .- No, sir, nothing of that. All this is the result of natural causes, and 
not clahiied to be a violation of the Constitution. But he degrades the nation and the Govern- 
ment by a sectional division which docs not exist in fact, and should not in form. He con- 
trasts the relative pro.sperity of the two sections with mathematical accuracy, and then declares 
the Constitution to be a failure, because it has not kept up this "equilibrium," and must be flung 
away or reformed. Yes, sir, the complaint is not so much that the Constitution has suffered vio- 
lence, as it is that it has become insufficient for the purposes for which it was created ; and al- 
lowances must be made for the variations of the compass, or the chart must be thrown away. 
Do gentlemen upon this floor sympathize with those sentiments of the distinguished Senator.' 

But, sir, enough, and mr.re than 1 intended to have said, in relation to this charge of" North- 
ern agi^ression." My purpose has been, while considering the charge as it is made against 
the whole North, more particularly to deny its truth as applicable to the State of Vermont. 
But, Mr. Chairman, there is another branch of this subject, more important to this committee, 
as it is calling for some action, upon which I propose to submit a few remarks. I mean the 
admission of California as a State of this Union. 'And here let me say that the c[uestion might 
with propriety be stated negatively. Why should not she be admitted.' Has she not suffi- 
cient number of inhabitants, and sufficient capacities for a State government. Has she not 
formed a constitution, forher organic law, that is republican in its character.' All this is either 
admitted, or not denied. But different reasons seem to oper.nte upon different gentlemen. Some 
insist upon connecting this question with the territory of New Mexico, and liave the question 
relating to both settled together- To this it is enough to say, that havmg no natural or necessary 
connexion, it is better, practically and theoretically, that they should be kept separate, and each 
settled upon its own merits. Some deny altogether the power of the peo|jle of California to 
form a State government until they had taken the initiatory step of having had a territorial gov- 
ernment. To this it may be answered, that the Constitution is silent upon the subject of a terri- 
torial government, and one of the reasons which some gentlemen urge why Congress has no 
power over slavery in the Territories is, that it ha.s no constitutional power to legislate for aTer- 
ritory, or to give it any government; a position, however, to which I apprehend but tew will 
subscribe. The social condition of our natures instinctively points to the necessity of govern- 
ment, and when a community or body of men find themselves without a governinent, they need 
no higher power or authority than this. Congress has power to make all needful rules and re- 
gulations respecting the Territory ; but if the Territory has, in advance of Congress, made all 
needful regulations, it supersedes the necessity of action in that respect on tlie part of Congress. 
The gentleman from Keniuoky (Mr. Stanton.) has instanced the case of the Dorr rebellion, so 
called, in Rhode Island, us authority to show the want of power of the people of California to 
form for themselves a State government. But the gentleman cannot fail to mark the distinction 
between overturning a srovernment which legally exists, and the exercise of the sovereign 
power of the people to form one, ex necesiitale, where none exi>!ts. 

The act of one in treasonable rebellion ; the act of the other is the exercise of the highest sov- 
ereign power — for in a free government the people are the sovereigns. 1 have, therefore, no 
difficulty in my own mind upon this subject. I hold, sir, that Congress has power to establish 
a territorial government, containing all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory, in- 
cluding that of prohibiting uluvery. I hold, also, that new States may be constitutionally ad- 
mitted mto the Union, without having passed through the subordinate condition of a territorial 
existence, in accordance witjj numerous and repeated precedents. 

Mr. Chairman, it seems n little remarkable to me, that such a lack of power of Congress 
should all at once have been discovered, both in the admiosion of Slates and the government of 
Territorie«, when the power in both respects has been so long exercised, and so quietly acqui- 



esccd in. The power of Congress to inhibit slavery in liic Territories has been bo long acqui- 
esced in, and so ofien directly or indirectly applied, ihatil would seem almost too late to ciuestion 
it. VVhy, sir, what is the history of this subject? Legislation on tiiis subject is older llian the 
Constitution. It boKan with the Continental Congress. The first wan in 1784, and that was in 
the form of a resolution proliibiting slavery from going into the then Northwest Territory. 
Again, in 1787, when the ordinance for the government of liiat Territory was adopted, the prin- 
ciple of that resolution was embodied in the ordinance, at this time, unanimously ; but, at the 
adoption of the resolution in 1784, Virginia and some other of ilie slave States voted against it. 
In 178U, Congress, under the present Constitution, affirmed over that ordinance. But it is said 
that it did no more than permit a compact already formed to remain. All thai may be true ; but 
the argument is just as good still. The Continental Congress did legislate upon the subject, 
liaving no more power to do so than the present Congress has over territory now free, and 
that legislation has never been questioned. But in the Missouri coinjiromise. Congress directly 
legislated — in 1845, in the Texas re.solutions, and, in 1848, in relation to the Territory of Oregon. 
It would seem, if precedent was any thinj, here were enough to establish the point, .so far as 
tiie power of Congress is questioned; and all who have any doubts of the expediency of exclu- 
ding slavery from the Territories now free, are commended to a careful perusal of the speech 
of the distinguished Senator from South Carolina. 

But, Mr. Chairman, in relation to ti<e admission of California, the honorable gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Conrad) has taken a new |)osition. I understood him to admit the power of 
the people oi' California to form their constitution, and the regularity of their proceedings, but 
still denies them admission. 

Mr. CoNu.tD. The gentleman will pardon me for interrupting him, but he has mistaken the 
nature of my remarks. Will he allow me to correct him.' 

Mr. Hebard. Certainly. 

Mr. Conrad. I understood the gentleman to say that I admitted the right of the inhabitants 
of California to frame a constitution for themselves. 1 made no such admission. 1 said, on 
the contrary, tnat this act of the people of California was an irregularity — a great irregularity — 
that this Territory belonged to the United Siates, and no people had a right to establish a govern- 
ment there without the consent and authority of the United States; that, nevertheless, Congress 
having omitted to provide the people of this country with a government, their adoption of a 
constitution for themselves was excusable, and even praiseworthy; and if the constitu- 
tion adopted by them contained nothing contrary to the interests or to the laws of the United 
States, I was willin<r they should live under it until we had provided them with a government. 

Mr. Hebard. Mr. Chairman, I am obliged to the gentleman for correcting me, if I have 
misstated him, for I certainly did not intend it. I give him great credit for the candor of his re- 
marks, and although I differ from him in some of his views, I think I can discover a conserva- 
tive feeling, and devotion to the Union and to the Government, thai will protect them both from 
tlie unhallowed taint of disunion. But it seems to me, that the explanation that the gentleman 
has given does not leave it essentially different, except in the particular of the irregularily. He 
now admits that it was a "praiseworthy act," and this is only another way of assenting to their 
power to do it; for we can hardly understaud how the people of California, in adoptinga consti- 
tntion for their Government, can be said to have done a praiseivorlhij act, if they had not the 
rightful political power to do it. But this is not the purpose for which I alluded to the gentle- 
man's remarks. It was to see what would be the condition and position of California, with a 
Constitution and Government which gave them all the powers of any sovereign State, and yet 
not admitted into the Union. She would not be in the condition of a territory, with a territo- 
rial Government given her by Congress. She would not be in the condition of the other States, 
for until she was admitted into the common bond of Union, she would owe no allegiance to the 
General Government. She would, therefore, if left in that condition, be essentially an inde- 
pendent nation. I think, therefore, she must be either a territory, under some government im- 
posed ufion her by the General Government, civil or military, or she must be admitted into the 
Union as a Slate, with her State Constitution. Whether she will be entitled to the rejiresentation in 
this House that she claims, I conside* another and a different question. When she shall be admit- 
ted as a State, and her two representatives that she has sent here ask for their seals, then it will 
be in time to examine their credentials, and determine upon the merits of their claim. They 
may fail to satisfy us that she is entitled to two representatives. But it will be in time to con- 
sider that question when it shall be presented. How are we to claim jurisdiction overher territory 
and her people for the purpose of taxation, and deny to her that constitutional correlative right 
of representation. 

But, Mr. Chairman, what reasonable ground is there for the South to ask or claim that any 
portion of this territory shall be slave territory ? Is it simply on the ground of keeping up a 
balance of political power? It will not do that in but one House. If the equilibrium is restored, 
it will as soon be lost again. But I deny any such right to claim it. We make laws and are 
governed by majorities,"not by sections. Or if, in the making of laws, sectional influence has 
prevailed, it has been in favor of the South. There was no such thing as a sectional equilibrium 
contemplated by the Constitution — and if one had been provided, natural causes would have 
destroyed it. Does the South need more slave territory to accommodate her own citizens? Let 
gentlemen ask themselves where tlieir own citizens migrate to, when seeking for new homes, 
bo they seek the uninhabited portions of their own slavery domain, or do they instinctively 



find iheir way into free territory ? In point of density of population, how do the free and the 
slave States compare? While the area of the slave States in extent of territory exceeds the area 
of the free States by nearly one-third, the number of iniiabitants in the free States exceed those in 
tlie s:lavc Slates by more than three millions ; making the proportion to the square mile as 
nearly two to one m favor of the free States — and this disproportion is daily increasing; and in 
fifty years, with all this vast newly acquired territory ailded to the free Stales, this disproportion 
will be doubled. The South have still room enough for such as choose slave territory for their 
homfs for a century to coir.e. It has its millions upon millions of broad and fertile acres, as yet 
untouched by the hand and untrod by the foot of civilization, with a climate unsurpassed, and 
decked and embellished and enriched at all points with th^ choicest bounties of nature. Let us, 
therefore, hear no more of disunion ; but let us, if possible, dig deeper and lay broader that founda- 
tion of this Union, which is the basis of our national hopes and national blessings and national 
glory; and which, while it is a terror and dismay to tyrants, is the rising day-star of hope to 
an admiring world. 



1 TBRARV OF CONGRESS 

JSiiiiifllll 



lii!iiiii!iii«|ii>';"^': 



011 898 102 9 W 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



011898 102 9 



